PRICHARD’S PENSION fund has been disintegrating in plain sight for years. Indeed, a news story in Sunday’s Press-Register aptly described it as a “train wreck unfolding in slow motion.”

With some other Alabama cities, including Anniston, also facing pension problems, it’s time for state officials to get involved. An appointed panel of experts could assess the viability of the 10 or so pension funds that, like Prichard, are run by a city or county rather than the Retirement Systems of Alabama.

Blame Prichard’s crisis on the stock market collapse, which gutted investments nationwide. Blame it on city officials, who inherited an ailing retirement system but didn’t do enough to save it. Blame it on employees who agreed to defer vacation pay in order to draw a lump sum at retirement.

But once the list of blame is exhausted, where does that leave the retirees? And where does Prichard’s pension fund go from here?

Fortunately, pensioners will start receiving checks again, beginning this month. The money won’t be as much as they’re owed, but at least the payments will provide some relief for the more than 100 pensioners who have gone without checks for almost two years.

Another promising development is District Attorney Ashley Rich’s move to investigate the matter. Indeed, there are many questions that demand answers, such as: How can a state law create a pension fund but not kick in when the fund tanks?

And, what liability should be laid at the door of Prichard officials? The state law that created the fund says that if “at any time, the fund be insufficient to pay in full the benefits ... it shall be the duty of the governing body of the City of Prichard to make provision thereof.”

Meanwhile, there’s the matter of the city’s pension fund records — a mountain of paperwork in boxes and binders in a vault. Volumes of missing personnel records are going to need to be found or reconstructed.

Certainly, the controversy can provide a lesson for other small municipalities that are managing pension funds. Prichard’s woes weren’t on state officials’ radar, but they were described in The New York Times and Wall Street Journal as a harbinger of the future for other plans around the country.

As sad as Prichard’s fate is, at least it can be an example of how not to manage a retirement fund.

The fund was allowed to crumble for a variety of reasons, ranging from simple denial to appalling management practices.

Despite the past, it is now necessary for Prichard officials — perhaps with outside help — to pick up the pieces and chart a path forward.